About your Search

20130227
20130227
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
savings and efficiencies, but also looking at the current situation with spending within the pentagon and making sure that our leaders there have the ability to make sure that they meet this nation's priority in making those spending decision. i appreciate the opportunity to coming -- to come before you. we look forward to taking your questions. >> can you clarify, does it completely remove defense? >> it would. sequestration has two primary components that we dislike. one is the severity of the cuts in national defense and the second is the arbitrary way in which it doesn't. what we are basically saying is we ought to at least agree on the national security defense and we do not want to do anything that would jeopardize that. this bill is in a simplistic form that everyone can expand -- can understand, that sequestration would not be good for national defense. adjusting the numbers anywhere they wanted to, but it would basically say that we are not going to use this kind of arbitrary approach when it comes to national defense. >> we tend to be hearing two messages from republicans. o
with a balanced approach to new revenue and necessary pentagon cuts and it creates jobs all over the country. it equalizes the cuts we've already made with revenue by closing tax loopholes for america's wealthiest individuals and corporations. but we shouldn't just sacrifice our economic recovery because republicans are unwilling to vote for one single penny and new revenue, new contributions from their billionaire friends and corporations. we have to look at what these cuts mean in the sequester. the sequester involves 70,000 children being kicked off of head start. no one in this chamber disagrees about the importance of head start. early childhood education is absolutely essential in creating the foundation for learning in children all over the world. and that's what head start is about. 70,000 american children being kicked off head start. that's what happens when you use a meat cleaver instead of a scalpel. we're talking about more than a million kids who will see their schools lose education funding. we're talking about emergency responders who will lose their jobs, meaning slower resp
secretary in a private ceremony with family members and immediate office staff at the pentagon. he later spoke to folks at the pentagon. we'll show that to you later in our program schedule. the supreme court today heard testimony in a case regarding the voting rights act of 1965. "the new york times" reporting on the oral argument today saying a central provision of that voting rights act could be in peril judging from rough or tough questioning today from the supreme court's more conservative members. they write that the law, a landmark achievement of the civil era, was challenged by shelby county, alabama, which said the requirement outlived its usefulness. we spoke about the oral argument today on "washington journal." host: the supreme court hears a case about the voting rights act today and here to talk about with us is ari berman, contributing righter at the nation. and hang von, at the heritage foundation, thank you to you. before we get into the specifics what the supreme court is hearing today,ary, tell us about the voting rights act and its history. >> it was put into place be
that everyone in this body agrees with my ideas about reshaping pentagon spending or reforming entitlements to ensure they provide benefits for generations to come, but i do know that making the changes that are best for the long-term interests of this country can't be accomplished overnight. this decision requires our best efforts and planning. as the threat of sequester has painfully revealed a chainsaw is no way to create a budget for the most powerful country on earth. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. pocan, for five minutes. mr. pocan: i am differentlyly and humbled -- and deeply humbled to represent wisconsin's second district. they are hardworking dairy farmers and cheese makers that can produce the best milk and cheese you can find. i ran for congress because i wanted to ensure these voices, the voices of south central wisconsin, are heard, respected and represented in washington. and i am committed to serving their needs by working with my colleagues, all of my colleagues, regardless
. people running these agencies, people who run the pentagon. i met with the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff) we left. these cuts are going to take place. they will be felt with defense more quickly because agencies have not rehired the people that they could have. because of the essential nature of what the military does. they have not done that. the cuts to the military will kick in more quickly. the other cuts, as the weeks move on, you will see more and more people who have been hurt in the non-defense fields. the effects are cumulative and they are going to hurt really bad, mr. president. we want to work with republicans to come to a balanced responsible way to reduce this sequester, the impact of it. my republican colleagues are standing in the way. they only want cuts and more cuts. they are willing to sacrifice three quarters of a million american jobs rather than ask to pay a penny more. mr. president, 56%, almost 60% of republicans around the country support this balanced approach that we have. republicans around the country support this, in addition to independents and de
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)